Selected summaries of investigations by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman July to September 2014
Selected summaries of investigations by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman July to September 2014 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 14(4) of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 10(4) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 28 January 2015 HC 943
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman copyright 2015. The text of this document (this excludes, where present, the Royal Arms and all departmental and agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing that it is reproduced accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman copyright and the document title specified. Where third party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at phso.enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk. This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications Print ISBN 9781474113793 Web ISBN 9781474113809 Printed in the UK for the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty s Stationery Office ID P002699439 01/15 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum
Contents Introduction 2 Parliamentary cases 3 Healthcare cases 64
Introduction The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman investigates complaints about government departments and other public organisations and the NHS in England. This report is the third in a series of quarterly digests of summaries of our investigations. The short, anonymised stories it contains illustrate the profound impact that failures in public services can have on the lives of individuals and their families. The summaries provide examples of the kind of complaints we handle and we hope they will give users of public services confidence that complaining can make a difference. These case summaries will also be published on our website, where members of the public and service providers will be able to search them by keyword, organisation and location. We will continue to work with consumer groups, public regulators and Parliament to use learning from cases like these to help others make a real difference in public sector complaint handling and to improve services. January 2015 Most of the summaries we are publishing are cases we have upheld or partly upheld. These are the cases which provide clear and valuable lessons for public services by showing what needs changing so that similar mistakes can be avoided in future. They include complaints about failures to spot serious illnesses and mistakes by government departments that caused financial hardship. 2 July to September 2014
Parliamentary cases July to September 2014 3
Summary 244/July 2014 Cafcass gave court damaging information about father in custody case Mr H and his ex-partner split in acrimonious circumstances. Both made allegations about the other to the court. Two Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) officers gave the court incorrect information about Mr H and he had to go to some trouble to put the matter right. The first Cafcass officer told the court that Mr H had admitted to an allegation that his ex-partner had made against him. Mr H had to make a number of phone calls to Cafcass before it accepted that he had not admitted it. It finally changed the document just before the next hearing. Cafcass had showed a lack of attention to detail and poor judgment. But it had admitted its mistakes and, crucially, had told the court about them so they did not affect the judge s decision in the case. We thought, however, that there was more it could do to put the matter right. Cafcass paid Mr H 500 compensation for his unnecessary distress and inconvenience. Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) The second Cafcass officer later told the court that Mr H was not engaging with her efforts to meet him. But this was not true. She later filed another report to the court that had some minor mistakes. When Mr H complained to Cafcass, it accepted that it had made these mistakes and wrote to the court to say so before the court made a decision about the children s custody. 4 July to September 2014
Summary 245/July 2014 Break in benefit claim due to Jobcentre Plus failings A break in Ms K s benefit claim meant that she lost out on financial support (a job grant and in-work credit) when she returned to work. Jobcentre Plus gave Ms K wrong information about claiming benefits when she was ill while she was claiming jobseeker s allowance. As a result, there was a break in her benefit record. This meant that when she started work, she was unable to claim financial support for the transition from receiving benefits to working in the form of a job grant and in-work credit. Ms K complained to Jobcentre Plus and then to the Independent Case Examiner (ICE) that Jobcentre Plus had given her incorrect advice. She sought a payment to cover the job grant and in-work credit that she lost out on because of the break in her benefit record. Jobcentre Plus and ICE did not uphold her complaint. Ms K had given Jobcentre Plus enough information for it to have advised her correctly. If Jobcentre Plus had advised Ms K correctly, she would not have had a break in her benefit claim and Jobcentre Plus would have accepted her job grant and in-work credit claim. Jobcentre Plus s record keeping was poor. It has a data retention policy under which it destroys records after a set period. If someone has made a complaint, it should keep the records until 14 months after the complaint is closed. Jobcentre Plus did not do this. Jobcentre Plus incorrectly told ICE that it had not received a letter from Ms K in which she had asked for advice on her benefits. However, Ms K had hand-delivered her letter to Jobcentre Plus. We did not have any more information than ICE had when it investigated the complaint and yet we spotted Jobcentre Plus s failure to retain records and the incorrect information that it gave ICE. Consequently, ICE had failed to consider the evidence in this case properly. Jobcentre Plus s failings were responsible for the break in Ms K s benefit record that meant she could not claim employment and support allowance. Ms K lost out on over 3,000 (for the job grant, in-work credit and employment and support allowance). This was a significant loss to her that had put her under financial strain. Moreover, in addition to the errors already noted, Jobcentre Plus gave Ms K a poor explanation about a 100 consolatory payment that it gave her, and ICE made things worse by not considering evidence properly. These failings added to Ms K s time, costs, confusion and frustration in seeking a resolution to her complaint and the in-work benefits that she expected but which, at the time of our investigation, some years later, she had yet to receive. Jobcentre Plus paid Ms K over 3,000 in compensation plus interest for the benefits that she lost out on. It apologised to Ms K for the failings we identified and their impact. Jobcentre Plus also paid Ms K 500 made up of 250 for its poor complaint handling and 250 for the financial strain Ms K felt when she did not receive the benefits she was entitled to. Jobcentre Plus checked its guidance about when to retain evidence after a complaint. It used this case to remind employees about the importance of keeping evidence for complaints, and how to identify what counts as evidence. July to September 2014 5
Jobcentre Plus also checked the mechanism that prevents complaint evidence being destroyed until 14 months after the close of a complaint. ICE paid Ms K 150 for compounding Jobcentre Plus s poor complaint handling by failing to consider properly the evidence in this case. ICE also apologised to Ms K for the failings we identified in its investigation and for their impact on Ms K. Organisations we investigated Jobcentre Plus Independent Case Examiner (ICE) 6 July to September 2014
Summary 246/July 2014 HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) agreed to pay additional compensation for service failures and poor complaint handling Mr S complained that in light of HMRC s mishandling of his Self Assessment tax returns and poor complaint handling, the 45 compensation HMRC offered him, a sum agreed as reasonable by the Adjudicator, was inadequate and should instead have been in line with the 100 penalties that had wrongly been imposed on him. HMRC did not set up Mr S s Self Assessment tax details correctly when he went into business. It then sent Mr S a computer-generated notice asking him to file a tax return for the wrong year (2009-10). When he did not submit the return by the due date, he received an automatic 100 penalty notice. However, although HMRC agreed that the penalty notice should not have been issued, it did not take the necessary steps to prevent this happening again, which it did. HMRC then sent Mr S a confusing letter claiming, contrary to what he understood he had just been told, that he did need to complete the 2009-10 Self Assessment return. When HMRC eventually admitted to a number of errors that had caused Mr S worry and distress, it offered him compensation of 25. However, Mr S considered that, given the professional time he had spent dealing with HMRC s incompetence, he should have been compensated in line with the 100 penalties it had wrongly imposed on him. HMRC said it was not authorised to make such a payment. When Mr S tried to pursue his case further, to tier 2 of HMRC s complaints procedure, HMRC failed to acknowledge his letter. By the time it did so (more than two months after he sent it), he had already escalated his complaint to the Adjudicator. The Adjudicator then took 20 months to deal with Mr S s complaint because of major resourcing problems. It concluded that although Mr S s tax affairs and his complaint had been poorly handled by HMRC, the apologies it had offered, plus the compensation of 45 (increased by 20 for poor complaint handling), was reasonable and in line with its redress policy. The Adjudicator also agreed with HMRC that its guidance did not allow it to pay compensation for the hypothetical cost of own time, and that there must be evidence of actual loss of earnings. We were broadly satisfied with the way the Adjudicator handled Mr S s complaint. Its decision, not to agree to his 100 compensation claim in respect of the cost of his own time spent trying to sort things out, was in line with HMRC s Complaints and Remedy Guidance Manual. We also agreed that there was no procedural basis for the Adjudicator to support Mr S s view that HMRC s compensation offer should be in line with its 100 penalties. However, we took a different view to the Adjudicator on the level of the injustice and the amount of redress needed to remedy that injustice. We also upheld Mr S s complaint about the inadequacy of the redress provided by HMRC in respect of its service failures and poor complaint handling and asked it to increase its compensation from 45 to 145. July to September 2014 7
HMRC paid an additional 100 compensation, and this was a suitable remedy for the impact on Mr S of HMRC s poor service and complaint handling. Mr S was satisfied with this outcome. Organisations we investigated HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) Adjudicator s Office 8 July to September 2014
Summary 247/July 2014 UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) delayed deciding request to stay in UK Mr H complained that, two years after he had applied for permission to stay permanently in the UK, UKVI had still not reached a decision. In 2003 Mr H came to the UK from Iraq seeking asylum. UKVI refused his asylum claim, but gave him permission to stay on a temporary basis because of the situation in Iraq at that time. In spring 2011 Mr H asked UKVI to reconsider his asylum claim on some new evidence. In winter 2012, Mr H s Member of Parliament (MP) queried when UKVI would be able to decide his application. UKVI said it was actively managing Mr H s case, but could not say when it would be concluded. Mr H s MP remained in contact with UKVI. In summer 2013, UKVI told the MP it would begin work on the case within six months. It did and in spring 2014 it decided Mr H s case. However, it refused his asylum claim and decided that there were no exceptional circumstances in his case that allowed it to grant him discretionary leave to stay in the UK. UKVI set out its reasons for that decision. But its letter incorrectly said Mr H had failed to report to it between 2004 and 2010. In fact he had not been asked to report during that period. UKVI should have decided Mr H s further submission to his asylum application by late summer 2011. This was within the timescale it had publicly committed to. It did not. Instead, it put Mr H s application into a queue of complex and difficult cases that needed to be resolved. When Mr H s MP queried the delay in his case in winter 2012, UKVI failed to realise the case should have been decided as a priority the year before. And, instead of deciding it, it misled the MP about how well the case was progressing. When UKVI finally decided Mr H s case, two and a half years later than it should have, its letter contained a factual error. This error had no impact on the decision on Mr H s case, but it meant that Mr H has not had an accurate explanation of UKVI s refusal of his application. UKVI s failure to decide Mr H s application by late summer 2011, and its failure to give him an accurate explanation of the reasons for its decision, amounted to maladministration. UKVI should have dealt with Mr H s request to have his asylum claim reconsidered by late summer 2011. As the decision was a refusal of Mr H s application, he benefited from UKVI s delayed handling of his case. However, Mr H has not had an accurate explanation of that decision. UKVI agreed to apologise to Mr H for not dealing with his request for his asylum claim to be reconsidered sooner. It also agreed to send him a revised decision letter that more accurately sets out the events of his stay in the UK before his application was decided. UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) July to September 2014 9
Summary 248/July 2014 Cafcass wrongly told court that Mr L had been charged with a crime Mr L complained that a Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) officer had had a poor attitude towards him and had failed to take account of his health. Mr L also complained about the content of the Cafcass officer s report that advised the court on Mr L s contact with his child. The court asked Cafcass for a report about residence and contact for Mr L s child. The Cafcass officer met Mr L and his ex-partner and observed their interactions with their child. The Cafcass officer completed the report to court and recommended that Mr L s child should live with her mother, with Mr L having regular contact. Mr L complained about the content of the report and the Cafcass officer s recommendations. Cafcass responded reasonably to Mr L s concerns about the Cafcass officer s attitude and the account the officer took of his illness. Some of the issues raised by Mr L related to the content of the report and Cafcass was correct to say that these matters should have been challenged in court. Cafcass wrongly reported that Mr L had been charged with harassing his ex-wife when the evidence showed that he had not been charged. We felt that that would have caused Mr L frustration and distress. Cafcass apologised to Mr L for incorrectly telling the court that he had been charged with harassment and for the impact that error had on Mr L. Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) Cafcass replied to the complaint and said that many of the issues raised should be discussed during the court hearing to decide where Mr L s child should live. Before the court hearing, Mr L s and his ex-partner s solicitors agreed to the level of contact that was set out in Cafcass s report. 10 July to September 2014
Summary 249/July 2014 UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) delayed deciding young man s application for further leave to stay in UK Mr L complained that because of a delay of more than two years in UKVI reaching a decision, he could not travel outside the UK or get the work experience he needed to qualify as an electrician. Mr L first came to the UK with his brothers and sisters in 1998, when he was aged eleven, to visit their grandmother. UKVI refused their application to enter the UK, but gave them permission to stay on a temporary basis. Mr L s mother then applied for the whole family to stay permanently in the UK on the basis that she was married to a British citizen, but UKVI refused her application. Eventually her appeal rights were exhausted, and in spring 2007 UKVI decided to remove the whole family from the UK. In spring 2010 Mr L applied to UKVI for permission to stay in his own right, and later that year it granted him permission to stay for six months on the basis of his family life in the UK. In spring 2011, Mr L applied to extend his leave. He should have applied on a specified form and paid a fee. However, because he could not afford the fee, he applied on an incorrect form that only applied to people who had sought asylum or humanitarian protection. This type of application was free. When UKVI received the form, it did not check it and sent it to a team dealing with a backlog of legacy asylum and migration cases. In late summer 2013 UKVI processed the application and granted Mr L permission to stay in the UK for 30 months. It was not part of UKVI s process to carry out initial checks of cases, and when it received Mr L s application, it placed it in the queue without checking whether it was correct for it to deal with. It was not. UKVI would have known that cases placed in its legacy backlog were likely to stay there for long periods, and we found it was unfair to customers to add cases to a backlog that should not be there. Its failure to have a process for checking cases was maladministration. And even when Mr L s representatives threatened legal action in late 2012, UKVI did not identify that the application had been incorrectly made. It also failed to meet a commitment to reach a decision within six months. Also, UKVI should not have processed Mr L s application because he did not make it on the correct form and it was therefore invalid. We could not look at the effects of Mr L s mistakes without considering what had caused them. Mr L had knowingly applied using the wrong form in order to avoid paying the fee. Whilst UKVI should have returned his application as invalid, this might have meant that he did not make an application at all. It was because of UKVI s mistakes that he achieved what he wanted avoiding paying a fee. Although this did not excuse UKVI s mistakes, we could not say that Mr L suffered an injustice as a result of it processing his application. The only injustice to him was that he had to wait longer than he should have done to get a decision. We partly upheld the complaint. July to September 2014 11
UKVI apologised to Mr L for the delay in dealing with his application, which was caused by its maladministration. As UKVI now carries out initial checks of applications, we did not need to make a recommendation to stop what happened in Mr L s case happening again. UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) 12 July to September 2014
Summary 250 /July 2014 Ministry of Defence (MOD) failed to adequately respond to enquiries and complaints When Mr P asked the MOD about its objection to his planned wind turbine, there were errors in its responses. It did not respond to him after his Member of the Scottish Parliament asked it to, and it delayed sending a complaint response. Mr P made a planning application for a wind turbine. The MOD objected because it said that it would affect a nearby radar station. It said that it would remove the objection if a suitable mitigation plan was agreed. Mr P emailed the MOD twice but did not receive a reply, because the MOD had incorrectly recorded its email address. Mr P contacted his Member of Parliament (MP) and his Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP), who wrote to the MOD. Mr P complained about not receiving a reply to his email or advice on how to complete a mitigation plan. The MOD gave him a number of reasons why it did not receive the emails. There were also a number of errors in the responses Mr P received from the MOD. The MOD delayed sending the final response, despite giving him a date by when it would respond. The original error in recording the email address was not so serious that it amounted to maladministration. However, it was maladministration that, when Mr P complained, the MOD gave him the wrong reason for the emails not arriving and did not take responsibility for the error until months later. It was maladministration that the MOD did not contact Mr P after his MSP wrote to the Minister specifically requesting it to do so. The time the MOD took to respond to the MP s and the MSP s letters was not unreasonable. The letters the MOD sent contained a number of errors. While each error on its own was minor, taken together, they indicated a lack of care when MOD staff drafted the correspondence. This was maladministration. The delay in the MOD sending its final response was maladministration. This was because it did not meet its deadline or respond to Mr P s email asking about the deadline. The MOD s failings caused Mr P frustration and inconvenience. The MOD apologised to Mr P and explained what it had learnt from the complaint and what action it had recently taken, or intended to take, to improve its handling of enquiries and complaints. Ministry of Defence (MOD) July to September 2014 13
Summary 251/July 2014 HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) agreed to reduce rate of recovery of overpayment Debt management unit accepted our recommendation that a tax credit overpayment should be recovered at a slower pace. Mr and Mrs A were overpaid tax credits in the 2006-07 and 2007-08 tax years, totalling over 7,700. The overpayment arose after they mistakenly entered a nil household income on their 2006-07 annual declaration, prompting HMRC to make a large payment (around 7,500) to Mr and Mrs A in summer 2007. Mrs A telephoned HMRC soon after to explain that the payment was incorrect and to discuss repaying it. The adviser explained that while the overpayment could be repaid straightaway, they could also retain it as it would be recovered through their ongoing child tax credit entitlement as long as their son remained in full-time non-advanced education. As a result, Mr and Mrs A retained the overpayment and paid it back through their ongoing entitlement until 2011-12, when, because of changes in government policy, their entitlement ended, and HMRC asked Mr and Mrs A to pay the remaining overpayments back directly. HMRC pay Mr and Mrs A 30 in respect of that poor advice. HMRC gave Mrs A poor advice and this gave her and her husband a reasonable expectation that their tax credit overpayment would be recovered over a far longer period than was eventually the case. However, we could see no reason to disagree with the Adjudicator s decision that the overpayment should be recovered. We recommended that HMRC s debt management unit recover the overpayment at a similar rate as it would have if Mr and Mrs A had retained their tax credits entitlement: around 50 per month. We considered that this rate of recovery, as opposed to pursuing Mr and Mrs A for the full amount immediately, returned them to the position they were in before their entitlement unexpectedly ended. HMRC agreed with our recommendation and provided a contact number for Mr and Mrs A to use to set up the arrangement. Organisations we investigated HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) Adjudicator s Office Mr and Mrs A complained to the Adjudicator in summer 2012. The Adjudicator partly upheld their complaint. It saw no reason to recommend that the overpayments were written off, but considered that the advice given to Mrs A in the telephone call in summer 2007 could have been better. The Adjudicator recommended that 14 July to September 2014
Summary 252/July 2014 Asylum seeker had to wait 18 months for routine decision on application to settle in UK UK Visas and Immigration delayed making a decision on an application to settle in the UK from Mr D, who had already lived legally in the UK for over six years. Mr D sought asylum in the UK at the age of 15. He was allowed to stay on a temporary basis until his 18 th birthday. UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) then granted him discretionary leave until autumn 2011. Mr D applied for further leave in 2011. But UKVI put his application into an already large backlog of old asylum cases and did not look at it for over 18 months. It finally granted him leave in late 2013. Mr D s application was straightforward. UKVI should not have put his application in the asylum backlog that was full of difficult and complex cases. When it did this, the application got stuck in the queue. UKVI should have found a more suitable team to deal with this application; had it done so, there is no reason why it would not have made a decision by early 2012. Mr D suffered unnecessary delay, which caused him stress. Had there been no delay, Mr D would not have had to pay his solicitors 300 to chase up his application. Following our report, UKVI reimbursed Mr D s solicitor s costs and paid him 250 to recognise the stress that arose from its errors. It also apologised to Mr D. UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) July to September 2014 15
Summary 253/July 2014 Child Support Agency made handling errors but put them right; ICE handled complaint reasonably Mr P complained that the Child Support Agency (the Agency) did not accept evidence that he had made maintenance payments. He was not happy about its decision on this, or with the Independent Case Examiner s (ICE) consideration of his complaint. In 2005 the Agency assessed Mr P s liability for child maintenance, which he paid through a deduction from earnings order. His employment ended later that year so he stopped paying that way. He says that he paid his ex-partner directly from that point. At various times between then and early 2011, the Agency sent Mr P letters and tried to trace him, but there were big gaps in its actions (18 months at one point, eight months at another). In early 2012 the Agency managed to contact Mr P and sent him a collection schedule backdated to 2005. He told the Agency that he had been making payments directly to his ex-partner, but he could not provide any written evidence of this (for example, bank statements). His ex-partner told the Agency that, while he had made some direct payments during that period, he owed her a lot of money. The Agency calculated Mr P s arrears and told him that he had to pay them. The Agency apologised for its poor service when it delayed tracing Mr P, and paid him 75. Mr P complained to ICE, which was satisfied that the Agency had acted reasonably. The Agency was too slow when it tried to find Mr P. Had it not delayed, it would probably have contacted Mr P sooner and reminded him about the requirement to show evidence of his payments to his ex-partner sooner than it did. However, it was his responsibility to be aware of that requirement from the start. The fact that a reminder was delayed does not remove that responsibility. That being the case, the apology and 75 offered were a reasonable remedy. We were therefore satisfied with the Agency s final position and with ICE s decision. When Mr P approached us, he mentioned service improvement, which had not been a focus of his complaint to the Agency or ICE. In light of that, we have recommended that the Agency consider how it can improve its service to make sure that non-resident parents are chased promptly. Organisations we investigated Child Support Agency (CSA) Independent Case Examiner (ICE) Mr P complained to the Agency and it gave him another opportunity to show evidence that he had made payments. He was unable to give enough evidence. 16 July to September 2014
Summary 254/July 2014 UK Visas and Immigration delayed deciding asylum seeker s request to stay in UK Mr B complained that UK Visas and Immigration delayed dealing with his application for permission to stay in the UK. In 2005 Mr B came to the UK from Iraq seeking asylum. At this time UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) confused Mr B s details on its computer system with that of another asylum seeker. UKVI refused Mr B s asylum claim, but gave him temporary permission to stay in the UK because of the situation in Iraq. In winter 2008, Mr B asked UKVI to reconsider his asylum claim, but UKVI refused him asylum. Mr B asked UKVI to reconsider his asylum claim again in spring 2012. UKVI put Mr B s case in its priority queue of cases to be decided because he was receiving public support. In winter 2012 UKVI began work on Mr B s case. However, it did not finally decide it until spring 2014, at which time it was refused. Mr B was receiving financial support when he asked UKVI to reconsider his asylum claim. UKVI should have prioritised his case to minimise the cost to the taxpayer. UKVI put his case in its priority queue of cases, but it was nine months before it started to consider it. When UKVI began work on Mr B s case, an error it had made when he first arrived in 2005 (when it mixed up his reference number with another asylum seeker) meant that it stopped working on his case. UKVI realised its mistake, but failed to resume its work on his case. Instead, it extended Mr B s financial support, which was contrary to the intention behind its prioritisation policy. UKVI did not look at Mr B s application again until we intervened on his behalf. But its 2005 error brought its progress to a halt again. UKVI resumed work on Mr B s case in early spring 2014 and refused his asylum claim the next month. That decision was reasonable, but UKVI s letter explaining it included a minor factual error about the length of time it had not known Mr B s whereabouts in the UK. UKVI should have decided Mr B s case by early spring 2013. It should have sent him a decision letter that accurately reflected his contact with it since his arrival in 2005. UKVI apologised to Mr B for not deciding his case sooner. It sent him a decision letter that accurately set out its reasons for refusing his asylum claim. UKVI reviewed its learning from Mr B s case to make sure that its prioritisation procedures work. It told us it now had a dedicated team dealing with cases in which public financial support was being paid. It also agreed to carry out a review of cases to make sure that all public financial support cases had been properly prioritised, and, if they had not been properly prioritised, to provide an action plan for dealing with them. UKVI said it would report the outcome of that review to us, the MP and Mr B within three months of our final report. UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) July to September 2014 17
Summary 255/July 2014 Independent Case Examiner (ICE) decision on child support was fair, but Child Support Agency was slow to act on information A mother complained that Independent Case Examiner s (ICE) investigation of her complaint failed to consider earlier mishandling by the Child Support Agency (the Agency). Ms A queried the nil assessment for child support maintenance in her case and, in response, gave the Agency details of the child s father s employment. The Agency revised the assessment, but only backdated it to when Ms A had first given the information after she complained. By then, however, arrears had accrued. The father then lost his job and the Agency was slow to deduct the reduced maintenance from his benefit. When the father started working again, the Agency was slow to impose a deduction from earnings order (DEO), so yet more arrears built up. ICE had addressed the complaint that Ms A had put to it, which concerned the Agency s delay in securing maintenance from the father s benefit and via a DEO. ICE s findings and recommendations for compensation were appropriate and reasonable, and so we did not uphold that aspect of Ms A s complaint. However, the Agency had yet to address her complaint about its failure to act on the employment information she had initially supplied. As a result, the Agency agreed to make Ms A an advance payment of over 500 for the arrears that had unnecessarily built up as a result of its delay, plus interest of around 25. Organisations we investigated Child Support Agency (CSA) Independent Case Examiner (ICE) Ms A complained to ICE about the Agency s delay in securing maintenance via benefit deductions and the DEO, and ICE upheld her complaint. It asked the Agency to pay Ms A compensation of around 50 for the missed payments from benefit, and around 450 for the missed payments via the DEO that she would have received had the Agency actioned these sooner. Ms A was unhappy that ICE did not address the fact that the Agency had originally allowed arrears to build up by failing to act on information she had given it about the father s employment, following the first nil assessment. 18 July to September 2014
Summary 256/July 2014 Benefits underpaid for nine years Mr B received around 14,000 less benefit than he should have over a period of almost nine years. From spring 2004, or possibly earlier, Jobcentre Plus incorrectly deducted between 30 and 35 from Mr B s weekly benefits, which comprised disability living allowance, child benefit, income support and a non-standard rate of carer s allowance. (The rate reflected the fact that Mr B and his wife each care for one of their sons, who are severely disabled.) At the time, the deduction represented 20% of Mr and Mrs B s overall weekly income. Every year, Jobcentre Plus manually calculated Mr B s benefit entitlement. This meant that it had seven opportunities in the years that followed to correctly calculate the benefit entitlement. However, it was not until early 2012 that Jobcentre Plus spotted its error and increased Mr B s benefits to his full entitlement of 56.85 per week (an extra 35.24 per week). In spring 2012, Jobcentre Plus paid Mr B around 14,000 in benefit arrears for about eight years and nine months. After a complaint from Mr B, Jobcentre Plus paid Mr B around 1,850. This was made up of a consolatory payment of 750 for gross inconvenience, interest calculated on the underpayment of around 1,100, and 6 for postage costs. Mr B complained to the Independent Case Examiner (ICE). ICE upheld his complaint and asked Jobcentre Plus to increase the consolatory payment to 1,500 and the interest payment to around 7,500. In reaching these recommendations, ICE noted Mr B s family s particular situation, including the needs of his disabled children and the extra difficulty the underpayment had caused in his family s circumstances. It also noted that Mr B and his wife had been diagnosed with stress and depression; there was professional medical opinion that the underpayment had contributed to the physical and mental ill-health of Mr B and his wife; and that Jobcentre Plus had put Mr B in the position of having to live on an amount under the minimum that the law said he needed. ICE accepted that this meant that Mr B had to use credit cards to get by. Accordingly, Jobcentre Plus should have calculated interest based on average credit card rates rather than the official interest rate of 0.5% that it had used. Mr B told us that carers like him do not have access to average rates of credit and have to borrow at higher interest rates. He also told us that he had to pay late payment and transfer charges. He believed ICE should have taken this into account and recommended a higher interest payment. However, Mr B did not provide enough evidence to support his claim. His evidence showed that he had paid interest at 18% in one period and 0% at another time. Consequently, ICE s recommendation that Jobcentre Plus pay the average credit card rate of interest (13.4%) was fair, based on the information available. July to September 2014 19
Normally, Jobcentre Plus requires more evidence than Mr B was able to give before it can pay interest at the rate that ICE recommended. This includes evidence of the amount of debt in the years before and after its error; evidence of the rate of interest paid on that debt; and evidence of what was purchased with the debt. In this particular case, ICE was right not to insist on further evidence, which Mr B simply could not provide, and right to take into account the circumstances of the case, in addition to the available evidence. Organisations we investigated Jobcentre Plus Independent Case Examiner (ICE) However, in the course of our investigation, Mr B gave us further medical evidence that we felt showed a strong link between the despair and stress he felt in resorting to credit card debt to meet the shortfall in his benefit payments and a sudden decline in his mental health. This persuaded us that Jobcentre Plus should further increase the consolatory payment in recognition of the impact of its error on the health and mental well-being of Mr B and his family. We did not uphold Mr B s complaint about ICE. We partly upheld his complaint about Jobcentre Plus. Our basis was that, through ICE s recommendations, Jobcentre Plus had done a lot to try to address Mr B s complaint, but there was still more it could do to recognise the impact of its error on Mr B and his family. At the time of the complaint to us, Jobcentre Plus had apologised to Mr B and paid him around 14,000 in benefit arrears; around 7,500 interest on the arrears; and 1,500 as a consolatory payment. We recommended that Jobcentre Plus give Mr B a further 1,000 consolatory payment in recognition of the impact of its error on him and his family. Jobcentre Plus agreed to our recommendation. 20 July to September 2014
Summary 257/July 2014 Mother complained that Cafcass did not take concerns seriously Ms B complained about Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service s (Cafcass) handling of her case in respect of the contact arrangements for her two children. She was also worried about the work of the Cafcass officers assigned to her case. In summer 2011 a contact order was put in place outlining contact arrangements between Ms B s two children and their father. Ms B said these arrangements, particularly midweek overnight contact, were not in the children s best interests. Between early summer 2012 and early 2013, there were court proceedings that involved two Cafcass officers. The final hearing took place in early spring 2013. Midweek overnight contact remained in place. Ms B was also concerned that Cafcass s documents were not shown to her and that there were factual errors in Cafcass s reports. She also felt that Cafcass had not addressed all aspects of her complaint. We agreed with Cafcass that there were times when it had not given Ms B the service she was entitled to. However, we were satisfied that Cafcass had accepted and apologised for this and that there was no evidence that Ms B had been disadvantaged in court proceedings as she believed. We identified no outstanding injustice to Ms B as a result of Cafcass s shortcomings so we did not uphold the complaint. Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) Ms B believed Cafcass s actions did not place her on an equal footing in the proceedings with her ex-partner. She also felt that Cafcass did not take seriously her concerns that the contact arrangements were having an adverse impact on her children. Ms B complained to Cafcass between autumn 2012 and early 2013. It accepted that there were times when the service she received fell below what was expected, but it did not feel that she had been disadvantaged in the proceedings. Cafcass said that it would not amend its report and that Ms B had had an opportunity to present her concerns so that the court could make a decision about contact. July to September 2014 21
Summary 258/July 2014 Mother complained she was made unfairly responsible for daughter s debt The Legal Aid Agency s (the Agency) poor handling of a woman s complaint led her to believe that she might have to pay back almost 78,000 that her daughter had received in legal aid funding. Mrs J s daughter received legal aid to fund the legal costs involved in separating from her husband. During this time, Mrs J bought a property from her son-in-law and allowed her daughter to continue to live there. Although Mrs J felt that her purchase was not related to her daughter s legal case, the Agency disagreed because it believed Mrs J s daughter had benefitted from the sale. As a result, it asked Mrs J for permission to register a charge against the property. This would mean that, if the property was sold, the Agency would be able to recover all or some of the money it had paid in legal aid funding to Mrs J s daughter. Mrs J initially agreed to this request but she subsequently withdrew her permission and asked the Agency to remove the charge. This was because she did not accept that her daughter had benefitted from the purchase. However, although the Agency had not yet registered the charge, it refused Mrs J s request and continued to insist that her daughter had benefitted from the sale. The Agency should have acted differently when Mrs J complained about the decision to register the charge, particularly as it had not actually registered the charge at that point. The Agency should have explained clearly how much money it might seek to recover more. Although the legal aid funding was approximately 78,000, the amount the Agency sought to get back by registering the charge was far less than that. The Agency also did not handle well an offer Mrs J had made to settle this issue. We could not say whether Mrs J s daughter had benefitted from the sale of the property. However, we felt that if the Agency had acted appropriately before registering the charge, all parties would have understood this point. The Agency took appropriate steps to have the charge removed from Mrs J s property and apologised to Mrs J for applying for the charge to be registered when it could not be certain that it was appropriate for it to do so at that time. It also apologised to Mrs J for its poor handling of her offer of settlement and paid her 250 in recognition of the worry, inconvenience and uncertainty its errors had caused her. Legal Aid Agency 22 July to September 2014
Summary 259/July 2014 Court hearings cancelled because of HMCTS s errors When HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) did not follow the directions of a judge, Mr D s appeal against a conviction had to be adjourned. HMCTS also caused confusion by sending Mr D a wrong notice of hearing. Mr D was convicted of assault by a magistrates court. He appealed against his conviction to a Crown Court. The appeal was listed for hearing five times, but did not go ahead on any of those occasions as the Court did not have enough time to hear it because cases that were heard before Mr D s overran. When one of the hearings was adjourned in mid- 2013, the judge ordered that Mr D s case should not be listed at the end of the week and that no other cases should be listed on the same day. HMCTS did not follow the judge s directions and listed the hearing at the end of a week and at the same time as other cases. The appeal could not go ahead again. When HMCTS sent Mr D an incorrect notice of hearing, it unfairly raised his expectations that his appeal would be dealt with. HMCTS should have sent the correct notification. It is also extremely important that HMCTS follows the directions of a judge. Its failure to do so here amounted to a serious error that caused Mr D some considerable frustration and inconvenience. HMCTS was not at fault with regard to the other hearings that were cancelled. It had listed those hearings correctly and, on those occasions, it was not HMCTS s fault that the cases listed before Mr D s had taken longer than expected. HMCTS reimbursed Mr D for the legal fees he had paid as a result of its mistakes, and his travel expenses. It paid Mr D 500 in recognition of the frustration and inconvenience its mistakes had caused him. HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) HMCTS also sent Mr D an incorrect notice that gave him the wrong date for his appeal. July to September 2014 23
Summary 260/July 2014 9,000 benefit mystery A man s death triggered the payment of over 9,000 in arrears of disablement benefit, dating back to the 1990s. When Jobcentre Plus refused to pay interest on the arrears, his estate set out to get some answers. Mr B received industrial injuries disablement benefit from Jobcentre Plus because his job had caused him to become ill with chronic bronchitis and emphysema. After Mr B died, his estate received over 9,000 in arrears of industrial injuries disablement benefit. Jobcentre Plus told Mr B s executors that it should have been paying Mr B more in industrial injuries disablement benefit since 1997. In line with its policy of compensating the person who suffered the loss, Jobcentre Plus refused to pay interest on the money because Mr B was dead. Mr F, his executor, complained. Two legal decisions in the 1990s had changed Jobcentre Plus s interpretation of the law about industrial injuries disablement benefit in 2000-01, benefiting several thousand claimants. Jobcentre Plus publicised the change at the time, but knew some claimants were still receiving less money than they were due. Officials decided they could not trace the claimants because the industrial injuries disablement benefit computer system was too basic and there were too many paper files to check. So Jobcentre Plus relied on spotting the cases when claimants contacted it for another reason. At worst, it would pay the arrears when a person died. It found Mr B was one of the unpaid claimants only when he died. In the circumstances, Jobcentre Plus s approach to tracing claimants had not been maladministrative. Jobcentre Plus has scope to make exceptions to its policy of refusing to pay interest on arrears paid after a claimant has died. Arguably, it saved money by refusing to pay interest and Mr B s estate lost money because it received only the nominal value of the arrears. In this case, we decided that no exception was needed. If Jobcentre Plus had paid Mr B in his lifetime, the estate would have received nothing or much less than 9,000. It would have been better if Jobcentre Plus or, later, the Independent Case Examiner (ICE), had given Mr F a fuller explanation of why it had paid the arrears only after Mr B s death. But this omission was too small to be maladministration. There was no maladministration in Jobcentre Plus s or ICE s handling of the complaint. Unusually, given that we found no maladministration, we made a recommendation. This was because the number of industrial injuries disablement benefit claims will continue to fall, making the task of identifying claimants in Mr B s position more manageable. Jobcentre Plus has agreed to review its policy on identifying people who might be eligible to receive additional industrial injuries disablement benefit, like Mr B. The aim is to meet Jobcentre Plus s own policy of paying benefits to people during their lifetime. Organisations we investigated Jobcentre Plus Independent Case Examiner (ICE) 24 July to September 2014
Summary 261/July 2014 UK Visas and Immigration gets it wrong Mr and Mrs B complained that UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) offered them inadequate compensation to redress the injustice caused by an acknowledged error by an entry clearance officer. Mrs B submitted settlement visa applications for her two daughters in the summer of 2012. UKVI refused them leave to remain. The refusal was wrong because UKVI had overlooked key evidence. Mrs B sent UKVI an email saying that its decision was wrong. UKVI did not respond to the email until after the deadline for appeals had passed. Mr and Mrs B submitted fresh applications in winter 2013, which were granted the following month. UKVI acknowledged that it made a mistake in refusing the applications. UKVI did not act on Mrs B s email that queried the decision within a reasonable amount of time. Had it done so, we believe that that would have given Mr and Mrs B sufficient time to appeal the refusal decision. UKVI apologised to Mr and Mrs B and the children for its initial error in failing to consider all the evidence submitted with the applications, and for its failure to consider Mrs B s email in a timely manner. It reimbursed the cost of the second set of application fees, almost 1,700 in total, and paid Mr and Mrs B 1,000 for the inconvenience and distress caused to them and the children when it incorrectly refused the applications. UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) July to September 2014 25
Summary 262/August 2014 Over 40,000 payment to farmer after incorrect advice Mr J received payment after three years of complaining, as the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) had not given him the right advice at the right time. Mr J farmed land that he leased. At the end of the lease, he tried to have his entitlements for the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) put permanently in his name. The SPS is a European Union subsidy intended as income support for farmers. To do that, he needed to send RPA an RLE1 form. His assistant called RPA to arrange this but because of a problem with its computer system, his entitlements were not visible. While RPA said that it told the assistant to complete an RLE1 form extending the entitlements before the lease ran out, there was no evidence that the assistant was reminded to do that after the computer problem arose. Her own notes showed that she was told to wait until the computer issues had been fixed before returning an RLE1. RPA s notes of the telephone calls were very brief and did not detail any discussions about how or when to return the RLE1. The assistant s last note showed that she had been advised that she did not need to do anything because the entitlements were correctly recorded, so Mr J applied for his SPS entitlement for 2011. Because an RLE1 form had not been completed, he did not get his expected payment of approximately 46,000. RPA argued that the assistant had been given the correct advice at the outset and it was therefore not prepared to revisit this decision. It refused to accept that it had given the assistant the wrong information and could not see that once the situation changed (for example, the computer problem was fixed), it had an obligation to make sure that Mr J understood what he needed to do to get his payment. On the balance of probabilities, RPA had misadvised the assistant because it had no evidence to show that it had told her to complete an RLE1 at any time after the computer problems arose. As a result we asked RPA to apologise to Mr J, pay him 1,000 for its poor complaint handling and pay him an amount equivalent to his single payment scheme entitlement of approximately 46,000 for 2011, plus interest. Rural Payments Agency (RPA) 26 July to September 2014